The Synopsis for Mile 22 (2018) 1080p

In a visceral modern thriller from the director of Lone Survivor, Mark Wahlberg stars as James Silva, an operative of the CIA's most highly-prized and least-understood unit. Aided by a top-secret tactical command team, Silva must retrieve and transport an asset who holds life-threatening information to Mile 22 for extraction before the enemy closes in.

The Director and Players for Mile 22 (2018) 1080p

The Reviews for Mile 22 (2018) 1080p

The Bergs are Miles Off Course with their Latest CollaborationReviewed bythsaustinsoberVote: 2/10

What a mess...and a major step down for the Mark Wahlberg/Peter Berg collaborations. This is easily the worst film I have seen in the year 2018. It is a testament to the worst qualities filmmakers can bring to the modern action film, ranked right next to such migraine inducing insults like "Tak3n" and "Resident Evil: The Final Chapter".

The story is very basic and B-grade: an elite team of off the book operatives have to escort a whistleblower 22 miles to an airstrip to escape his corrupt Southeast Asian nation. If they do so, he will provide the location of a deadly weapon the U.S. wants to desperately find. Trouble is that everyone is going to try to kill them along the way. Despite that painstakingly simple premise, they manage to make the expositional buildup overly complicated. You are thrown into a conflict you don't understand over an objective that you don't feel the magnitude of. This is complete with characters referring to things that already happened with a previous mission that failed which we didn't witness. The exposition being confusing is something the filmmakers must have noted themselves because right before the escort begins, John Malkovich's character literally breaks down the entire setup AGAIN to make sure you, in fact, get it. That is lazy writing and shows that the filmmakers think that the audience is either stupid or is a victim of their own storytelling incompetence. The story is also told in "flashback" I guess as it keeps randomly cutting to Wahlberg's character retelling the event (more exposition for those that can't follow this basic premise...again) and also monologuing about random..."philosophical" things about special ops missions. Nothing he says is actually important. I think he is supposed to be trying to give the film a message or something like a wise man. He is no wise man though, he is just the movie equivalent to fortune cookies drunk on Jack Daniels mixed with Gatorade. Actually, this whole movie feels like a "Call of Duty" wet dream... written by those very annoying COD players that are 12 years old and are far too young to be playing a game meant for adults. There is also this constant cutting to some Russian characters. Based on the opening, you know that they have a purpose. The actual outcome of that purpose, however, is sort of like...."oh that's what the deal is....wait why do I care again?"

Then there are the characters: all of them are either unlikeable, uninteresting, or an unholy combination of both. The most consistent example is the film's lead Jimmy Silva as played by the usually reliable Mark Wahlberg. His character is like this super hyper thinking soldier that is way off on the mental spectrum. He is super intelligent and obsessive about everything around him and has to use a rubber band on his arm which he pulls and slaps on his wrist to keep him calm. This is could be interesting, but instead, the character is an awkward embarrassment. He is a complete jerk to everyone around him, talks way too fast, and likes to just get right in everyone's faces to yell and complain like a whiny, little baby that lost his raddle. He is a complete a-hole and I honestly wished somebody would just punch him in the face. But his character seems to get off on violence so...perhaps that could just make things worse. He is a horrible character with an embarrassing performance by Marky Mark...right next to the "The Happening".

Finally, there is the critical sin: the editing and cinematography. This is some the poorest, most incomprehensible action I have seen in quite awhile. Every shootout and fight scene is compromised by ADHD cuts to so many shaky cam angles over and over again. Furthermore, most of the camera work is shot very tight in either close-ups or medium shots. You never get a sense of geography. You never can tell where the "heroes" are in context to the enemy. You get the general sense that people are shooting bullets and that people are getting hit by said bullets. They have the guy from the "The Raid' films in here and they completely waste his talents in his TWO fight scenes. This man can do a whole fight in one shot and they insist on cutting shots every 0.5 seconds as if they are trying to hide poor choreography. But you can tell it's not!! You can tell that in better hands this would be amazing!!! And do not defend this movie's editing and camerawork as being "realistic". There are many directors that can pull this style off well. Heck, Peter Berg is one of them! Go watch "Lone Survivor", "Deepwater Horizon", and "Patriot's Day" because those are great examples done right. "Patriot's Day" contains one the best "realistic" shootouts I can remember in recent years. This is straight up garbage. This is why I praise a movie like "John Wick" for getting the action right. That's why "John Wick' is a 5-star movie in my book. If you think that the way they do the action in this film is good, I am sorry but you might have something seriously wrong with you. Bad taste...very bad. Screw this shaky cam crap! And that makes up half the movie...if not more.

Horrible movie. Want something similar that is good, check the 2004 S.W.A.T. movie. It has a very similar plot with better characters, buildup, and action. Need something more recent? Try "Sicario".

A Generic Action Film with Under-Developed Characters, No Resolutions, and a Half-Assed StoryReviewed byleegatoVote: 4/10

Just got back from the world premiere of Mile 22 in Westwood, Los Angeles, CA, at the Fox Village Theater on August 9, 2018.

Overall thoughts: the action was brutal and fun to watch at times, aside from the direction, which I"ll get to later (special shoutout to Iko Uwais for the fantastic martial arts choreo sequences), and the whole film had a highly rhythmic pace to it that was accentuated by Mark Wahlberg's James Silva's habitual rubber-band-wrist-snapping.

Unfortunately, those are really the only good parts of the movie.

The direction was sloppy; this movie transports me back to those days when "good action" was considered to be the camera being in the cast's personal space and cutting 5 shots in 2 seconds. So many quick shots happen you can't even tell what the hell is going on in a single room because you can't see anything other than some blurry hand rushing across the screen.

There is literally no character development and no resolution to any of the conflicts in the film. None. Every conflict that occurs in the film isn't solved, either because the film is too short to be able to cover any exposition for it, or because the film wants to shamelessly set up a sequel (let alone, a trilogy) to help flesh out this half-assed story that the audience is apparently supposed to care about. The film ends on a cliffhanger (I won't say what that cliffhanger really is, mostly because I'm actually still confused about it) that leaves the fate of some characters unknown and the audience wondering "That's it?" It's like the films thinks that somehow the audience wants more when the characters were barely explored and the action was generic at best.

Our characters begin flawed and end flawed; Mark Wahlberg's witty, brash, and comedic portrayal of Silva stays witty, brash, and comedic throughout the movie; in fact, it seems the character is only capable of responding in that way in the face of adversity and near-death experiences. Lauren Cohen's character, Alice, has a storyline focused on her personal life, evaluating her strained relationship with her ex-husband and her love for her daughter (the latter two have a whopping 5 minutes of screentime) that is never resolved or affected by the storyline of the film, or vice versa. Iko Uwais' character has motives only explored by a single line uttered by him, and nothing else, and we're supposed to accept that and be emotionally invested? The characters are given a backstory but not given the time or investment to tell audiences why they should care about these characters, and so when the cliffhanger occurs we're just left confused and annoyed that no characters learn anything through this 22-mile journey and no conflicts are resolved.

The film is also structured in such a way that it somehow is predictable; interspersed with the action are scenes of Wahlberg's Silva being interrogated during a government investigation, providing narration to the confusing action and even foreshadowing to the "big" cliffhanger and twist of the film, along with the suggestion that "something goes wrong" with this mission. It's been done before, and it makes the film so predictable.

The great thing about watching this on the premiere was I got free popcorn and soda, and I got to hear Mark Wahlberg stand up in the theater and shout "Can we start the movie?"

DisappointingReviewed byyiftikarVote: 4/10

When i see the trailer, i was hoping to see explosions like in the 'under water horizon', fighting scenes like in the 'Raid' and shootouts like in the 'two guns'.

But then when i see the actual movie, it's just baaaaaddd. I can't enjoy the fighting scenes, too many close up, shaky camera, can't catch the dialog. All i can enjoy is the cool air in the the cinema and hoping to fall asleep.